PDA

View Full Version : Air Marshal Uses Gun to Subdue "Noncompliant" Pax


Airbubba
13th Nov 2001, 05:22
D.C. Man Arrested on Flight

Associated Press
Monday, November 12, 2001; 8:06 PM


A US Airways plane from Pittsburgh to Reagan Washington National Airport was diverted to Washington Dulles International Airport because of an unruly passenger, the Federal Aviation Administration said Monday.

US Airways spokesman Richard Weintraub said air marshals on board Flight 969 ordered the plane to Dulles rather than National. Dulles is 40 miles farther outside the capital than Reagan National. The plane landed without incident at 5:08 p.m. EST, the FAA said.

The passenger, Raho Ortiz, 33, of Washington, was arrested, law enforcement and airport officials said. Law enforcement authorities said the man ignored warnings to stay in his seat on Flight 969. Passengers cannot leave their seats during the last 30 minutes of any flight into Reagan National under new security rules imposed when the airport reopened after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Another passenger, Robert Gorence, a former assistant U.S. attorney for New Mexico, said he saw a man "making his way toward the cockpit" when "an air marshal jumped up with his gun and subdued him."

Gorence, in a cell phone call from the plane to Albuquerque television station KOAT, said all the passengers "were ordered to put our hands above our heads, and then we were quickly diverted to Washington-Dulles."

GeofJ
13th Nov 2001, 06:04
Seems like a bit of an overreaction to me, personally I think the no stand up within 30 mins of landing rule to be mindlessly stupid - government trying to look like they are doing something when they are clueless. Of course the pax should have been jumped for non-compliance with crew or air marshal orders but making all of the passengers sit with their hands on top of their heads and diverting to IAD - a bit over the top. Sometimes blind adherence to silly government regulations just makes things worse - hard to convince people to fly when this kind of cr@p is happening!

DownIn3Green
13th Nov 2001, 08:48
I agree...the order for the pax to have their hands over their heads is OTT.

However, if language is an issue...

In a letter to the editor of the Naples Daily News recently, a reader commented on a proposal that was made to print another issue in Spanish.

He said "No Way", but if you must, why not print the "Ploice Beat" section in Espanol?

Makes one think, eh?

[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: DownIn3Green ]

LimaNovember
13th Nov 2001, 09:16
From the day they started to talk about air marshals, I have had mixed feeling about it. Mainly because I`ve been wondering how these officers are recruited. Are they former law enforcement officers, people with a military background, or have whoever is responsible for putting them onboard our airplanes been smart enough to take advantage of the expertise on air safety all the pilots made redundand after Sept. 11th. could bring to the table. If handling a gun is what it is all about - you certainly do not need a professional airman/woman. But if you want people with inside knowledge of safety in the air, may be the responsible people should look at the flight crew community. They might even find candidates with both qualifications, law enforcement and experience from security and safety in the air.

Ignition Override
13th Nov 2001, 09:25
When a person heads forward "to the cockpit", they are also going towards the First Class lavatory-did the guy have to go really bad? What if the last food you ate gives you the you-know-what?

This country has so many hysterical procedures, it is embarassing-it was enough going to Europe years ago and noticing the crap from MTV which gets exported from these shores.

Is the requirement to be seated into DCA strictly an FAA reg, or is it from the Executive or Legislative Branch of government?

We should now market any flights into DC as "Conair, Part Two", a continuation of the movie which featured one of the governments' convict flights, normally flown by B-727s, and force our passengers to wear the orange coveralls.

[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]

[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]

Captain Sensible
13th Nov 2001, 11:43
"all the passengers 'were ordered to put our hands above our heads,'"
Are they going mad over there?

foxmoth
13th Nov 2001, 12:14
I also wonder how long before some terrorist manages to get a JOB as Sky Marshall!

LimaNovember
13th Nov 2001, 12:37
Capt Sensible, I agree. I had to go back and read the opening post on this thread over again. It is hard to judge what actually happend onboard that flight from what I`m reading, but it gives me a sneaky feeling that we are experiencing some sort of a Hollywood style of approach to a serious problem. And as a cockpit professional, I think this is something we do not need. Not at all. I would love to know more about the selection process of air marshals. International aviation is a professional environment. Flight crews are all well aware of that. We are trained,tested and screened several times a year to make sure that the quality is up to a professional level. We need to know that everyone involved in despatching a flight is a professional; the engineers, the guy from the fueling company, the cleaners, the loaders and... the air marshal. An aircraft at 35000 ft. is no place for "trigger happy" people. Came to think of it; what is the legal side to this. Can a captain refuse to carry an air marshal? I`m just asking.

Pandora
13th Nov 2001, 14:02
Is no-one else concerned that the sky marshall 'ordered' the aircraft to divert? I don't know what the rules say over there but the final say-so in Europe lies with the captain of the aircraft. Did the sky marshall really order the flight to divert, or did he request or recommend it? Is a sky marshall qualified to make decisions about weather and airport facilities? Or is America in constant sunshine, with no need for NOTAMs or airfield info services?

SaturnV
13th Nov 2001, 15:10
Pandora, my understanding is that if any passenger leaves his or her seat in the last 30 minutes before a plane is to land at DCA, the plane must divert to IAD. That supposedly is the standard rule. The rule supposedly also requires no leaving your seat in the first 30 minutes of a flight to DCA, which means that shuttle passengers (LGA-DCA) would never leave their seat given the one hour flight time.

radeng
13th Nov 2001, 15:31
If a passenger on the shuttle with bladder problems urinates on the aircraft seats or floor as a result, does he/she get arrested?

I'd rather
13th Nov 2001, 16:43
IMHO, it seems that those responsible for airline security in the US have got their priorities wrong. The "no standing up within 30 mins of landing" rule an over-reaction to the present situation to the present situation, especially if more fundamental issues are not being addressed. Is it REALLY true that luggage going into the hold isn't X-rayed?? I heard it on the news, but I'm having trouble believing it, because it seems such an obvious and fundamental point.

On a related point, a friend of mine was travelling in the US on business a couple of weeks ago, and was about to fly home (don't know which airport) when a gentleman of middle eastern appearance was asked to leave the aircraft (I don't know why - whether he was actually misbehaving, or whether as a result of hysteria by fellow pax/crew). He was taken off, BUT HIS LUGGAGE WASN'T! That would be unthinkable in Europe.

So my unhappy and frankly rather nervous friend had a rather uncomfortable flight back to the UK (have to admit, he's a braver soul than me - I think I'd have got off!)

Surely if a pax behaves/looks like a serious security threat, you take his luggage off too? Not to do so seems to me to be asking for another Lockerbie.

maxalt
13th Nov 2001, 17:06
I feel very uncomfortable discussing Skymarshall operations on an open forum.

Perhaps those of you who are questioning the actions of this particular individual should think about the following.

1. No Skymarshall wants to reveal his presence or identity until absolutely necessary.

2. Terrorist hijackers don't usually operate alone...although they may pretend to be.

Those of you with half a brain and keeping in mind some of your basic security training should know what I'm saying.

Let's just drop it now folks.

LimaNovember
13th Nov 2001, 21:02
Maxalt,

I can appreciate what you are trying to say, but not the way you say it ;)

So let us ask the moderator to close this thread.

bush
13th Nov 2001, 21:47
Sounds like the poor guy was just going to the toilet, I can just imagine it - "FREEZE MOTHERF*CKER".
Don't think I'd feel safe as a passenger with skymarshalls on board. At least you could spot them, they'll be the ones with the ten gallon hats and spurs.

I. M. Esperto
13th Nov 2001, 22:27
http://nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9611/0001.html
... SENATE AIDE ARRESTED FOR ASSAULT. Raho Ortiz, a Senate Indian Affairs Committee
aide, was charged with the malicious wounding of Christopher Stearns, a House ... www.co.arlington.va.us/cmo/digest/07-24-98.dig.htm (http://www.co.arlington.va.us/cmo/digest/07-24-98.dig.htm) - 38k - Cached - Similar pages

He's a troublemaker. John Wayne was right.

Capn Lucky
13th Nov 2001, 22:48
The measures taken by the FAA make absolutely no sense at all. I personally witnessed several trucks pass through a gate at TPA without being searched this past weekend. All the driver did was run a card through a scanner and the gate opened. No checks of the people on the truck or its contents. However, we have 2X the National Guard troops doing nothing at the passenger checkpoints. Its time that the FAA got out of the security business and handed it over to someone better, preferably law enforcement or military. As far as sky marshalls are concerned, I like the idea and wish I had them on my flights, regardless of the stereotypes applied by others. I'm not sure where the 30 minute rule came from, but I'll feel safer landing at DCA this weekend.

Steve

None
14th Nov 2001, 00:57
The Authorities did not want to reopen DCA to airline ops. We pleaded with them to reconsider. The FAA came up with a plan to make the Authorities somewhat comfortable with the idea. Now we have limited, yet absolutely vital operations at DCA. Yes, no pax may stand within 30 minutes of DCA. This is FAA law. This is thoroughly briefed to the pax...they will not be surprised.

The Air Transportation System is not back to normal. Manpower is not available to address every item on the list. You have to work with the system through these difficult times until the less important items can be addressed.

GeofJ
14th Nov 2001, 02:30
None your post seems to miss the point - the 30 min rule is cr@p! We here in the US keep being asked to accept silly cr@p in lieu of real security actions in an effort to placate us or the ever nebulous "authorities". This is simple. Make security screening a law enforcement funtion - pure and simple - backing up poorly trained and ineffective contract labor with National Guard troops still leaves you with ineffective and poorly trained people doing the screening! Develop real responses to the challenges to running DCA - closing it down is not an option - threatening all pax is not an option - use your heads and develop a real solution that works not some mindless rote routine that doesn't work and doesn't make things any safer! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Avman
14th Nov 2001, 03:11
God bless America, the land of the hopelessly naive and paranoid. Then they'll wonder why there are no tourists and why no one is flying anymore. Yep, God bless America!

GeofJ
14th Nov 2001, 05:42
Avman - no need for the American bashing - only a select few of us are naive - unfortunately they are the ones making the rules right now! I hardly think any developed country would face the same circumstances and not run in circles throwing out stupid ideas. Don't believe this is limited to the US!

None
14th Nov 2001, 06:14
I share your frustrations with passenger security screening. I do not share your belief that shutting down DCA is not an option. If it becomes too much of a problem to comply with the special ops at DCA, I believe they will shut it down. In effect, they are saying here's the procedures, deal with it until we can come up with a better solution. You can be sure that the airlines are working to achieve that better solution. So far, they have not bought the ideas that have been offered. What can you do? Keep a cool head and keep trying.

Rollingthunder
14th Nov 2001, 07:04
Reagan National is too damn close to several symbols of America. The Americans are not going to make possible the desecration or destruction of any of these symbols...again.

You have to remain seated, you have to drink less and hold it more and if you still don't GET IT and cannot follow instructions from flight crew, expect a gun in your face you dumbasses.

Get used to it.

christep
14th Nov 2001, 12:09
And the sad thing is that people like RollingThunder don't seem to understand that by acting and talking in this way they are rapidly eroding the very things which those national symbols (used to) stand for.

Airbubba
14th Nov 2001, 13:56
>>Sounds like the poor guy was just going to the toilet, I can just imagine it - "FREEZE MOTHERF*CKER".<<

Yep, apparently that was the scenario.

Predictably perhaps, the race card is already being played: "...Agnes Ortiz said her son is not a terrorist. 'No way, he's Navajo -- Native American -- from this country. We were here before all you people,' she said."

_________________________________________


Passenger Prompts Landing At Dulles
Man Approached Cockpit Despite Ban


By Lyndsey Layton and Maria Glod
Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, November 13, 2001; Page A08

U.S. sky marshals on a flight from Pittsburgh to Reagan National Airport suddenly ordered a plane to land at Dulles International Airport yesterday, after a passenger got up and started walking toward the cockpit, authorities said.

The passenger, Raho N. Ortiz, 33, refused to follow a new federal rule requiring passengers to remain seated in the last half-hour of an approach to National, said Chris Murray, an FBI spokesman.

About 15 minutes before the plane was to land at National, Ortiz got out of his seat and started walking briskly toward the front of the plane, where a restroom and cockpit are, said David Castelveter, a spokesman for Arlington-based US Airways.

As Ortiz neared the cockpit, a sky marshal in plainclothes seated near the front yelled, 'Stop!' said passenger Mike Cannon, of Arlington.

Two sky marshals -- one with a gun drawn -- and a third man ordered Ortiz to get on the ground. He complied without a struggle, Cannon said. He "kept saying: 'I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I just wanted to go to the bathroom.' "

Flight attendants had announced the ban on getting up during the last half-hour of the flight, passengers said.

After the sky marshals had Ortiz handcuffed on the ground, the marshals ordered the other 106 passengers to put their hands behind their heads and later on the seats in front of them for the rest of the trip, several passengers said. Some said they briefly thought that the plane was being hijacked and panicked.

The plane, a nearly full Airbus A319, remained at Dulles rather than following the usual pattern of being allowed to continue on to National after a diversion, said Tom Sullivan, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which runs both airports.

Ortiz, a lawyer, works for the Environmental Protection Agency, his mother said last night. When the plane landed at Dulles shortly after 5 p.m., the FBI arrested him on a charge of interfering with a flight crew. By 8:30 p.m., the FBI had dropped the federal charge and released Ortiz, Murray said.

However, the Airports Authority police issued a summons ordering Ortiz to appear in court in Loudoun County to answer a charge of misdemeanor drug possession in connection with the alleged possession of marijuana, according to an Airports Authority spokesman.

It was the first time that U.S. sky marshals diverted a US Airways flight, Castelveter said.

Federal Aviation Administration officials refuse to discuss the sky marshal program in detail, but sources say marshals are aboard all flights into and out of National.

Laura Brown, an FAA spokeswoman, could not confirm whether yesterday's was the first flight diverted by sky marshals. Since flights resumed service to National after Sept. 11, some flights bound for that airport have been rerouted to Dulles. But in most cases, the cause was improper procedures by the pilot, Brown said.

Flight 969 took off from Pittsburgh International Airport at 4:19 p.m. and was due at National at 5:20 p.m. Ortiz left his seat shortly after 5 p.m.

Authorities said he lives in Northeast Washington, but his mother said he lives in San Francisco, where he works for the EPA. Telephone calls to an EPA spokesman went unanswered last night.

Agnes Ortiz said her son is not a terrorist. "No way, he's Navajo -- Native American -- from this country. We were here before all you people," she said.

feetnkneestogether
14th Nov 2001, 17:50
Sounds ridiculous!

Am I the only one to mention that waving a firearm around in a pressure hull up at FL200+ is a distinctly un-sensible thing to do at all.
Regardless of the training / calibre of the individual holding the weapon, if he feels he has to use it, or it is fired by accident, can we live with the consequences..?!?!

Stun guns sound a little less suicidal.

Ranger One
14th Nov 2001, 21:36
Quite right feetetc... am I the only one to see how easily this could have gone horribly wrong? If I was pax on a flight in the USA today and a guy started waving a gun and ordering my hands in the air I'd have a bloody good go at him, whether he claimed to be a sky marshal or not... I think we're moderately fortunate that didn't happen in this case.

Totally preposterous John Wayne approach to a subject that is far too serious for this. IMHO. Sky marshals, yes. Breaking cover and waving a gun because someone who needs to **** (and may not speak English) stands up, NO! Makes about as much sense as confiscating nailfiles whilst selling duty free high-proof spirit in glass bottles...

[ 14 November 2001: Message edited by: Ranger One ]

LMD
14th Nov 2001, 23:07
to all here who think that all U.S. law enforcement officers are john wayne type cowboys, waiving guns in pax faces - how about you do a little research first. us marshalls are put through a 3 month training course similar to what field agents of the FBI, DEA and other special ops programs. they are highly trained and are quite aware of their environment. i know a little of he program because i have a family member and a friend who are in the program.

just a little school lesson for you; not every american with a gun rides around on a horse "shootin' up the town". you may find it hard to believe, but we (americans) have highly trained law enforcement officers just as you do. by the way, armed officers on board seems to work for the Israelis.

while europe may think of the current world environment as an inconvenience, we have a different take on it. we are at WAR. there will obviously be some over-reactions, especially in the early stages as we all get used to this new environment. we were attacked, remember? i would much rather err on the cautious side than to have another plane crash into the capital.

as for the incident that started this thread.
my hats off the the marshalls and the flight crew for doing their job and following procedures. has anyone here ever flown into DCA? i have. as mentioned by someone earlier, there are special procedures for flights in and out of DCA because of its close proximity to some of our countries most sensitive areas. these are well briefed to the pax. if there was a language problem then the procedure needs to be modified, but it certainly wasnt a case of the marshalls "kicking up there spurs". honestly, some of the xenophobic comments towards the U.S. are unbelievably naive, makes you wonder how this country became so succesful with all the gun-totin' roughnecks riding around.

as for the passengers being ordered to put there hands above their heads. this makes perfect sense. once you have commited yourself to taking action, you have to secure the entire aircraft. how many of the Sep 11 aircraft had one hijacker on board? how would you quicky identify any other potential hijackers?

for anyone who has a chance, i would recommend visiting the WTC disaster site. i was there a couple of weeks ago. it kind of puts things in perspective.

[ 14 November 2001: Message edited by: LMD ]

GeofJ
15th Nov 2001, 00:48
Yes LMD I have flown into DCA many times over the last few years and I grew up under the flight path on the south - I do not believe US law enforcement types are "cowboys" I just think the "special rules" are ridiculous! If we close down DCA because of terrorist fears we play right into their fears! Do we just throw away billions in infrastructure and thousands of jobs for fear? The 30 min rule has no demonstrated basis in fact - if it did then we should have 30 min rules for any flight travelling within 30 mins of DC -oops shouldn't have said that the politicians might just try that too now!

We need to keep the nuts off the planes and that is a legitimate law enforcement job.

LMD
15th Nov 2001, 00:50
just a couple of more points,

LimaNovember,

you mentioned that an aircraft was no place for "trigger happy people". i'm sorry,
i missed the part of the story where the reckless marshall shot up the airplane
killing all on board. the marshalls showed restraint.

Ranger One,
"If I was pax on a flight in the USA today and a guy started waving a gun and
ordering my hands in the air I'd have a bloody good go at him, whether he claimed
to be a sky marshal or not..."
hey james bond, lets be honest, if a 6'3" 220 lb federal marshall stood in front of you
pointing his Glock at your nose, i think you would sit down and say "yes sir" and
do exactly as he intructs. and you accuse the americans of being cowboys?

Avman,
"God bless America, the land of the hopelessly naive and paranoid".
Avman, please enlighten us all with your grand knowledge of all things
in the known universe. your arrogance is sickening. please excuse
the paranoia. did you know anyone in the WTC 11Sep? have you been
to the site?by the way, which is it, naive or paranoid? its hard to
both at the same time.
"Then they'll wonder why there are no tourists and why no one is flying
anymore. Yep, God bless America!"
so your saying the reason that the tourist industry is down is because
of the sky marshalls on the aircraft? are you sure you want to stick
with that rediculous statement?
why do you keep saying "god bless america"? do you have an ax to grind?

LMD
15th Nov 2001, 01:01
Biz SLF,

i am not saying that we should shut down DCA. as a matter of fact, i was early on saying that it should be reopened. the more that we change our lifestyle, the more these bastards win. all we are showing by closing DCA is that we are afraid of them.

listen, europe and the rest of the world may have decades and centuries of war, terrorism, killing and strife, but we are kind of new at this (who is the lucky one). i have been astonished at the border-line joy that has been voiced by our "friends" that the U.S. are now part of all of this. whatever, but give us a chance to come up to your expert level of dealing with terrorism and security. along the way we will makes some mistakes and changes but in the end i know where i would rather be.

Avman
15th Nov 2001, 03:51
LMD, no I have no ax to grind. I have been in the USA two to three times a year every year since the mid seventies. On the whole Americans are very nice people but, from personal experience, I have found them (with some exceptions)to be insular, and naive about life outside the USA. My well-travelled American friends agree with me. With regard to paranoia: right now there is a dire need for the American aviation industry to woo the public back into its airplanes. I can't see reports of gun toting Sky Marshals ordering innocent passengers to put their hands behind their heads as a means of achieving this. I have personally found America to be a land of extremes. Authorities generally either totally ignore or completely over react to problems or emergencies. They seem to have little ability to gauge appropriate reaction. Again, I have had numerous personal experiences of this. I'm not American bashing but simply telling it how how I see it. If America is as good as it perceives itself to be, I'd expect better than I've seen so far. Incidentally, we Europeans have been "at war" much longer than you have, so please don't patronise us on that issue!

LMD
15th Nov 2001, 04:52
Avman,

i wasnt patronizing you. i do realize that europe has had these problems for a long time. i am both sad for you and happy that up until 2 months ago we didnt have these problems. i am proud that we have been spared these atrocoties until recently. what i was reacting to was your arrogance and condescending attitude towards the U.S. i didnt realize that you and your country had it all figured out and are currently living in nirvana. your attitude reeks of envy and there is an air of glee in your comments that we have fallen on our faces. whlle america is far from perfect your take on it is thankfully erroneous. you make the statement that we either dont react or over react to situations. whatever. you base this on a few visits. well, i have lived here 34 years and things generally work pretty well.
as a matter of fact, the more i travel around the world and see other countries and cultures, the more i am proud to be an American and grateful to God that i was born in this land.
good luck to you and i am sorry you are forced to endure america and its people twice a year.

to Bush,

you need to stop basing your opinions of americans on hollywood, big guy. thankfully, hollywood does not represent the rest of us "normal" americans. while i have been accused of being naive, these comments show where the real naivity lies.

here is scenerio for you.
i (you) am a pilot on a flight that has been deemed to have security issues. all passengers are briefed on the special procedures involved (very little inconvenience by the way, in america flights of 1 hour routinely never turn off the seatbelt sign). during the descent a passenger gets up and walks towards the front of the aircraft. he doesnt respond to challenges from the cabin crew. the undercover marshalls sit and do nothing. as the pilot in command, i would be very upset. thats what they are there for. the real marshalls did their job. nothing more, nothing less.

[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: LMD ]

HugMonster
15th Nov 2001, 04:55
Excellent post, Avman. I have been accused elsewhere of being "Anti-American". You'll have to take my word for it that's it's not true.

However, agreeing with Avman, you guys are, frequently, hopelessly naive. It's actually one of the qualities that most endear you to us, as well as being one that exasperates much of the rest of the world.

What I've seen of extra USA "security precautions" are a joke. Yes, they look very tough, but then you leave huge gaping holes elsewhere. And this will continue until there is Federal control of aviation security, as there is in the UK and Israel. Why not learn a little from the people who have been fighting terrorism for rather longer than you have? I am proud to have been a very small cog in the machinery fighting terrorism, and, really, you guys don't know which way is up.

Missing elements such as positive baggage identification, search of vehicles on entering airside, etc. etc. should be standard. Do you have any idea at all how easy it would be to get a bomb (or any weapon) onto an American aircraft? Yes, it would still be possible here, but an awful lot more difficult than in the USA.

To state proudly that Sky Marshalls receive 3 months training horrifies me. Why so little?

[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: HugMonster ]

christep
15th Nov 2001, 09:58
I may be being naive here, but it seems to me that the same people who support the concept of armed air marshals are those who praised the "heroes" on the flight that crashed in Pa. for taking on the hijackers.

As a regular SLF could you please enlighten me on how I should distinguish between a hijacker and an airmarshal when someone stands up, draws a gun and says "I am an air marshal - everyone put your hands on your head"?

Presumably, under the great American way that you are all trying to defend, the airmarshals will come in all shapes, sizes and colours to avoid any discrimination.

If the answer is that anyone who says "I am an air marshal" should now be believed haven't you just undone one of the biggest deterrents that exists for potential hijackers - that 200 pax acting together will always thwart their aims?

And a supplementary question... when in response to the first person standing up and saying "I'm an Air Marshal", everyone put your hands on your head", a second person stands up, draws a gun and says "No, No I'm the Air Marshal he's a hijacker" - who do we believe as a gun battle ensues around us?

It seems to me as a pax that I would MUCH rather have the situation that if someone on a plane draws a gun then I know they are a hijacker - with 200 pax knowing that, the hijacker will be very unlikely to achieve his aims.

If I can be certain that when someone draws a weapon and says "I am an Air Marshal" that they really are one, then logically there is no need to have the Air Marshal in the first place.

This whole concept of air marshals seems logically flawed to me.

[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: HKGpax ]

BEagle
15th Nov 2001, 13:24
"Ladies and Gentlemen - we're now 40 minutes from our destination, Ronald Reagan International Airport. In accordance with current regulations, please note that you will be required to remain seated with your seatbelts fastened at all times for the last 30 minutes of this flight, at which time I shall remind you again, flash the seatbelt signs and then leave them on."

"For the terminally stupid, that means when the belt signs are on, SIT DOWN, BELT UP AND SHUT THE F*CK UP!!"

[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

4llA
15th Nov 2001, 18:22
LMD
My friend
It's quite possible that you are making some reasonable points.
But, because you refuse to follow the rules (and this is really quite strange because you seem to be a proponent of following rules and regulations) I do not bother to try to read your posts in full. I suspect I am not alone. The rules I refer to are those of written English: I (the personal pronoun)is a capital; sentences start with capital letters; proper nouns use capitals (for example: America, not america). But you are prepared to type capitals for, for example, WTC. The result is that your messages are difficult to read for the majority who do find it beneficial to follow the rules. Therefore you do not create the impact which, I am sure, you are aiming for.

why, i ask, do you not reckon to comply with common english practice?

I'd rather
15th Nov 2001, 19:13
Phew, I'm glad 4IIA isn't a Brit, otherwise I might have felt the need to apologise for one of my fellow countrymen...

LMD, I think you're being a little over-sensitive. I'm not aware of any "borderline joy" over what has happened in America. What people have expressed here is concern that too much attention is being paid to the wrong aspects of safety. The sky marshalls and 30 minute rule seem to be an over-reaction, while other, more fundamental issues are not being tackled. X-raying of hold luggage is fundamental, as is making sure that if a passenger gets off a flight, so does his luggage. If those elements are being neglected in favour of window-dressing, then there is a problem. This isn't America-bashing, it's constructive criticism.

gofer
15th Nov 2001, 20:00
411A

Because the difference is a text in 'merican - (translation to UK English = American the dialect decending from the English early invaders of North America) - as opposed to the language that you describe US English (God bless Microsoft and Bill G. for getting one definition right).

Now 'Boy George' - No not the singer the other one - speaks another derivative of a dialect 'texican english'. Although at present he seems to be talking - pre learnt simplified FBI/CIA English, probably to avoid having to take his foot out of his mouth so often. This simplified version stresses the Black/White and GOOD/BAD logic, fully ignoring the 'there are only shades of grey' logic more favoured by the Europeans. As some of the other thread comments imply, this could be "to be acceptable and understandable to a wider audience of his newer natives".

Learning to live in a multi-cultured society ain't easy. Adding the complexities of "other languages" and then other races, religions and habits only exponentially compounds the problems.

I live my life in 3 languages and manage across 15 radically different cultures, people from 30+ races, creeds, religions, etc. and then try and cope with Europeans, Limeys and 'Mericans also, and have done so for the last 20 years. And we ain't seen nothing yet.

Now anybody toting a Glock in a plane is going to have to prove he's a marshal PDQ or it will probably be 'my dead body alongside those of the other frequent fryers'.

Most of the guys and gals I see fairly often on the flights around here, who are also in the 2000+ pax flying hours a year range, tend to have the concept:

"Anybody taking over an aircraft I'm in, had better be taking it safe and sound to where my ticket says"

[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: gofer ]

Covenant
15th Nov 2001, 20:59
Can anyone address the points brought up by HKGpax? I think they are well worth discussion, certainly more so than the syntax and semantics of the English language!

Avman
15th Nov 2001, 21:02
LMD, I think you need to get out more.

bush
15th Nov 2001, 21:47
LMD,
You're right, I would also be upset if someone wasn't doing their job properly. However I feel the job of skymarshal is unneccesary in the U.S. if proper security procedures are used on the ground.
UK airlines have flown in and out of Belfast in Northern Ireland, which up until recently was a terrorist heartland, without the need for a skymarshal and without incident. The money and effort used to train skymarsals would be better spent on effective security on the ground, by the time some mad mullah gets on an aircraft it is too late.

Bush aka "Big Guy"!

P.S. 4lla, let me know of any grammar or speling mistakes.

Ian Fleming
15th Nov 2001, 21:56
In reply to HKGpax,
It is my understanding that Sky Marshals are required to identify themselves to the pilots and cabin crew before the pax are boarded. :)

Al Titude
15th Nov 2001, 22:07
HKGPax

Seems to me you've been studying your philosophy, with all this talk of logic and wrestling with concepts!
It is a good point you make about how do we know he is really a air marshal or not. However, surely the issue here is that it matters not because he has managed to smuggle a gun on board. Your argument implies that we are caught in a dilemma in a perfect security environment - if anyone points a gun at your head it is wise to do what he says, sky marshal or otherwise!

An air marshal would surely be a reactionary person, unlikely to start waving a gun around without reason. An air marshal is also unlikely to rush the cockpit, in typical hijacker style. Similarly, I think if such an event occured, the captain over the PA could probably give some guidance to the pax over who was the genuine guy.

So I think you have a good point, but it is more a playing with concepts rather than a likely circumstance. I think a "No, I'm Sparticus!" situation is no more likely to develop than a situation where a man tries to hold up a bank, and the hostages are unsure of who is the robber and who the police.

Just my thoughts anyway - the important thing here is to make sure security is effective enough to keep idiots with guns off the aircraft in the first place!

Covenant
15th Nov 2001, 22:17
White Bear

OK, point taken.

But there is an issue here which I think is important. If passengers see a hijack situation developing, should they sit tight and wait for the air marshall to do something, or should they wade in and risk being clocked as one of the hijackers by the air marshall should he materialise?

Obviously, air marshalls do not declare themselves to passengers, as they do to flight and cabin crew. So one of your best assets in defence against hijack has been neutralised because passengers are now not sure of what is expected of them.

Should they sit still with their hands in the air like good little passengers or should they take responsibility for their own fates? Conflicting messages and ambiguous expectations lead to cock-ups.

I suppose my point develops HKGpax's a little further so that we're no longer talking about a case of mistaken identity between a hijacker and a sky marshall, which I concede is unlikely.

There is, however, a question of responsibility. Should we act like sheep (or SLF), or should we act like human beings who have some control over their own destiny? The existence of air marshalls, who may or may not be present on any given flight, conceivably leaves the role of the passenger open to question in the event of a hijack.

[edited for clarity and typo]

[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: Covenant ]

gofer
16th Nov 2001, 20:26
Al, Cov,

Thanks for developing this - that was where I was trying to get to.

If we think of the probable Pax aborted Hijack of 9 11, and we assume that it really was a Pax anti-Hijack attempt - that to me is the right attitude, and if we gotta go - not the worst way to go.

So do we have to say - you have Sky Marshal(s) and they are fully competent to think for you. Because that brings the biggest dilema of all. The crew knows that we have the marshals, but they are NOT on every flight - so I the PAX, who just happen to be in the majority if we ever decide to go back to flying - don't know that.

SO WHEN DO I START AND STOP THINKING - Boy George you have created another foot in your mouth, because if a sky marshal screws up, with the american (let your lawyer help himself and perhaps you as well) legal system, if I was on board, I guess my wife's pension plan is just dandy, knowing our lawyer.

Sorry for convoluted asides in the text, but its way past my jet lagged bed time. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Ex-REX
17th Nov 2001, 02:34
Saw an interview with Senator Debbie Stabenow on "the O'Reilly Factor / FoxNews" last night. Stabenow was one of the passengers on the flight from PIT to DCA. she said she was very impressed with how the air marshals handled the situation. You can see the whole interview at FoxNEWS (http://fn.emediamillworks.com/) (pay-per-view unfortunately).

And maybe the European airport security isn't as "superior" as we've thought/claimed.. I've included the the following from the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten;
Airport security under fire
An international agency has given Oslo's airport at Gardermoen poor marks regarding its security measures. A host of practices at the airport can threaten passenger safety, the agency claims in a report.
The report by the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) is being held back by Norwegian aviation officials, and not even Norway's Transportation Minister has been informed of its contents.
Newspaper Aftenposten Aften says it has been put out by the ECAC, however, and points up several flaws. Aircraft, for example, are not kept under security observation when parked overnight at Gardermoen. Private cars continue to be allowed to drive right up to the terminal building without being checked. The report also claims baggage checks are poor, nor are packages properly examined. The airport also fails to subject personnel to security checks. The report is the result of a thorough, four-day examination of procedures at Gardermoen by the ECAC, of which Norway is a member. Airport officials claim the report is a preliminary one, but that it is "useful." They declined, however, to further comment on its contents.

rick1128
18th Nov 2001, 07:38
As an American and an experienced professional pilot, I must comment on some of the comments here. I have been fortunate to travel through many parts of the world, Europe, Middle East, Africa, South Pacific and Asia. After what I have seen in Europe and the Middle East, I have not been too impressed on what I have seen for security here after 9/11. It is my opinion that much of the changes are window dressing. The National Guard trops in the terminals. As far as I have been able to determine they have not had any special training for this. It is my understanding that the Border Police troops in Germany train for almost a year to do just that duty. The weapons used by the NG are unsuited for the enviroment. Yes, they will do the job, but ricohets from the 5.56mm are unpredicable. Fortunately, I will not have to be the one the write a letter saying your Husband (or wife, or child) is dead because the National Command Authority is stupid. They do not appear to have enough supervision, as I have personally observed conduct from them that is unprofessional. I brought that issue up to a sargent. His comment was that the weapons were not loaded. Sorry I was trained differently. If there is a clip in the weapon, you assume the weapon is loaded. If there is not a clip in the weapon, you assume the weapon is loaded. The first time you don't, someone is going to die.

As for the Senator being impressed. It is easy to impress a politican. Who else would spend millions of dollars for a job that they can keep for only 2, 4 or 6 years and pays $200,000 a year or less? Unfortunately, we as Americans get what we pay for.

I am concerned about the marshall pulling his weapon. According to the above reports, there were three marshalls on board. By regulation, they have to be informed of each other and any other armed officers on board. And it being extremely unlikely that the passenger was armed, they could have controlled the situation without drawing a weapon. Yes, I am Monday morning quarterbacking here. But not without some background here. I have had many flights with armed personnel on board. Including some 'interesting' situations, and I have yet to see these people pull a weapon. Most of the time it is not necessary. From what I have heard here, to me it appears to be the case here also. As for a firearm going off at 20,000 feet. First of all, being 15 minutes from DCA, the aircraft would not be at 20K. From the times I have gone into DCA, they have me down to 10K 40 miles from the airport. And in that east coast corridor they tend to keep everyone 16,000 or below. It doesn't make much difference what altitude that aircraft is at 20,000 or 1 foot, you don't what that to happen. From personal experience, it is not fun. In my case it was not a marshall, it was a stupid SOB who thought his shotgun was empty when he put it in the gun case, with the safety off. On short final a bit of a bump and 'BOOM'. There were several upset people. Starting with me, after I got my heart started again. Then my boss, because of the hole in the side of the King Air. And a couple his fellow passengers whose bags were ventilated.

As for the screeners. They are now going to be federal employees. The government is taking the heavy stick route. When the carrot and the stick route would have been much better. Their so-called security experts are military trained and are being pushed by the military. These are the guys that the Generals and Admirals like. They didn't make them look bad. We should have used the ass kickers who did their jobs right and got kicked out of the military for making these Generals and admirals look bad.

Not that I have stepped off my soapbox, I have a few suggestions. First the other employees around airports need better security training and support. Right now we are being treated like criminals and poor relations. We see a whole lot more than security management realizes. Second, we a aviation professionals worldwide need to change our collective thought processes and work together to make our enviroment, both work and home, safer, more secure and better. We can do that be communicating, not only among ourselves but with other profesional groups and with our public officials. When we see thing that are not right, dangerous or just plain stupid, we need to communicate that also.

The best thing we can do is to always be aware of our enviroment. Like my old sargent always said: "Stay Alert, Stay Alive" it's still good advice.